DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Amendments to the Claims and Arguments/Remarks filed 02 June 2026, in response to the Office Correspondence dated 02 March 2026, are acknowledged.
The listing of Claims filed 02 June 2026, have been examined. Claims 8, 14, 22 and 23 are pending, have been amended, and are supported by the originally-filed disclosure. Claims1-7, 9-13, 15-21, and 24-30 are canceled and no new claims have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed 02 June 2026, is acknowledged and has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The entry of the amended claims has been acknowledged. The applicant’s amendments and Remarks have been fully considered and are not persuasive, as outlined below in the Response to Arguments. Claims 22 and 23 are remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite and claims 8, 14, 22, and 23 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lin and Torrent-Parker and Shetty and as evidence by DeSousa.
Maintained Rejections
The following rejections are maintained from the previous Office Correspondence dated 02 March 2026, since the art which was previously cited continues to read on the amended/newly cited limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites "a particle size distribution D50 ranging from 2 micron to 10 micron," and claim 23 recites "a particle size distribution D90 ranging from 10 micron to 20 micron." These claims are indefinite for failing to specify critical parameters that affect the measurement of particle size.
Particle size measurements, particularly D50 and D90 values, can vary significantly depending on the measurement technique employed (e.g., laser diffraction, dynamic light scattering, sedimentation, microscopy), the sample preparation method (e.g., with or without sonication, dilution factor, dispersing medium), the data analysis parameters (e.g., optical model used, software algorithms), and whether the reported values are volume-based, number-based, or intensity-based. The specification does not specify which measurement technique should be used, under what conditions, or how the data should be analyzed. Without such parameters, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether a given composition falls within the claimed particle size ranges.
To overcome these rejections, the applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to provide clearer boundaries, such as by correcting phrasing, clarifying the Markush group recitation of insecticides (e.g., remove the extraneous “and”), and specifying the measurement technique and conditions for the particle size limitations (e.g., wherein particles of the aqueous insecticidal composition have a particle size distribution, as measured by laser diffraction in an aqueous dispersing medium based on volume distribution, comprising at least one of a D50 particle size of from 2 µm to 10 µm or a D90 particle size of from 10 µm to 20 µm).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8, 14, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US-20110033436-A1; publication date: 10 February 2011) in view of Lin (CN-102388892-A; publication date: 28 March 2012) and Torrent-Parker and Shetty (US-20080318881-A1; published 25 December 2008, hereinafter referred to as “Torrent-Parker”) and as evidence by DeSousa (WO-2021127126-A1; publication date: 24 June 2021).
Chen discloses a stable aqueous insecticidal composition (Abstract) wherein, “The amount of the insect control agent employed is preferably about 1% w/w to about 99% w/w of the entire formulation.” (¶[0060]), overlapping substantially with the instant claim 8 range of 0.1 to 70% and the instant claim 14 range of from about 0.1 to 50% w/w based on a total weight of the aqueous insecticidal composition. Further, Example 4 (¶[0095]-[0096]) uses 33% w/w insecticide concentration, which is encompassed within the claimed range.
Chen teaches the use of dispersants and surfactants to stabilize aqueous insecticidal suspensions. Chen teaches a 5% w/w total weight stabilization system, within the instant claim 14 range, comprising 1% steric stabilizer Atlox 4913 (HBL 10-18; methyl methacrylate graft copolymer), 3% steric stabilizer EO-PO nonionic surfactant (HBL 13-15; poly(ethylene glycol)-block- poly(propylene glycol)), and 1% electrostatic stabilizer Morwet D425 (alkyl naphthalene sulfonate and (C1-C16)-alkylnaphthalenesulfonate/formaldehyde condensate), with the use of 33% w/w insecticide concentration (Example 4; ¶[0095]-[0096]), which is also within the instant claims 8 and 14 ranges. The ratio of the steric stabilizer Atlox 4913 to the electrostatic stabilizer Morwet D425 is 1:1 by weight and the ratio of the combined steric stabilizers EO-PO nonionic surfactant and Atlox 4913 to the electrostatic stabilizer Morwet D425 is 4:1 by weight, both within the instant claim 8 range.
The claimed ratio of steric to static stabilizer of about 5:1 to about 1:5 by weight is a routine optimization of the relative amounts of these conventional formulation ingredients. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adjust the ratio of stabilizers to achieve desired physical properties such as suspension stability (result-effective variable), and the claimed range represents a conventional range for such formulation components and selecting a ratio within the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Chen discloses the use of ethoxylated and propoxylated alcohols, polyoxyethylene alkyl ethers, and polymeric dispersants to sterically stabilize suspension concentrates (¶[0038]-[0044]), including the steric stabilizer Atlox 4913 (HBL 10-18; methyl methacrylate graft copolymer), EO-PO nonionic surfactant (HBL 13-15; poly(ethylene glycol)-block- poly(propylene glycol)) in Example 4 (¶[0095]-[0096]) in aqueous pesticidal formulations and discloses sulfonated aromatic dispersants, including naphthalenesulfonate condensates and lignosulfonates, as electrostatic (static) stabilizers (¶[0046]) and Morwet D425 in Example 4 (alkyl naphthalene sulfonate and (C1-C16)-alkylnaphthalenesulfonate/formaldehyde condensate; ¶[0095]-[0096]), which would be understood by one of skill in the art as having HLB values within the claimed range of 10-18.
In addition, Torrent-Parker teaches (¶[0087]) aqueous liquid compositions of insecticides (such as neonicotinoids) and a stabilizing system that comprises a steric stabilizer (block copolymer of polyalkylene oxide or acrylic copolymer) and a static stabilizer (naphthalene sulfonic acid or lignosulfonic acid) at a ratio of 1:5 to 5:1, including the selection of polyoxyethylene-based nonionic surfactants having HLB values between about 10 and 18 (Abstract, ¶[0037], ¶[045]-[0046], Examples). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the relative amounts of polymeric dispersants and surfactants may be adjusted over a broad range depending on formulation needs.
Chen explicitly teaches the formulation without spores present (claim 17) and combining insecticides (such as the neonicotinoid clothianidin; ¶[0023], ¶[0058], ¶[0059], claim 11) to broaden spectrum and improve efficacy (¶[0068]). The diamide insecticide, flubendiamide is listed as a suitable insecticide for the embodiment of the invention (¶[0058]) by Chen, however does not expressly teach the specific binary insecticide combinations recited in claim 8, particularly chlorantraniliprole in combination with chlorfenapyr, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, diflubenzuron, flupyrimin, or clothianidin.
Lin teaches that chlorantraniliprole is a well-known insecticide suitable for use in aqueous suspension concentrates as a method of controlling undesired insects when applied to pests at an insecticidally effective amount and that it can be effectively stabilized using a combination of a steric stabilizer, specifically 12 grams of an EO-PO block copolymer (HLB unspecified), and a static stabilizer, specifically 8 grams sodium lignosulfonate (used with 0.5 grams of the diamide insecticide chlorantraniliprole) (Abstract, Example 7, paragraph 45). Lin thus provides the motivation to substitute the insecticide clothianidin in Chen's composition with the known alternative chlorantraniliprole from Lin, expecting to achieve a stable aqueous formulation using conventional formulation auxiliaries.
Lin also teaches insecticidal compositions comprising chlorantraniliprole in combination with other insecticides for enhanced pest control (Abstract). Although Lin does not expressly list every specific insecticide pair recited in claim 8 (e.g., chlorfenapyr, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, diflubenzuron, flupyrimin, clothianidin), Lin teaches the general concept of combining chlorantraniliprole with other insecticides in aqueous formulations to broaden the spectrum of activity and that such combinations are desirable in the art to control resistant pests and provide synergistic effects.
DeSousa further demonstrates that such combinations are conventional and recognized for their complementary modes of action (¶[0059]) and DeSousa provides evidence that combinations of chlorantraniliprole with insecticides including chlorfenapyr, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, diflubenzuron, and clothianidin were known in the art (claims 7, 8, and 11). Selection of specific known insecticides for combination with chlorantraniliprole would have been a routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by known complementary modes of action and resistance management, as taught generally by Lin and supported by DeSousa.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to substitute one known structurally and functionally similar diamide insecticide, flubendiamide, in the invention disclosed by Chen, for another, chlorantraniliprole, known at the time of the invention in the art to be used for the same purpose of controlling insecticidal pests (as evidenced by Lin), to achieve predictable results. The skilled artisan seeking to broaden the spectrum of pest control or address resistance management would have been motivated to combine chlorantraniliprole with other known insecticides having different modes of action, as taught by Lin, Torrent-Parker, and evidenced by DeSousa.
The selection of chlorfenapyr, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, diflubenzuron, flupyrimin, or clothianidin as combination partners for chlorantraniliprole represents a routine optimization of known insecticidal mixtures, yielding predictable results of enhanced or complementary pest control. The prior art establishes that such combinations were known and their use in aqueous formulations with conventional stabilizers would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Selecting specific concentrations from overlapping concentrations taught in the prior art (as taught by Chen and Torrent-Parker) would have been an obvious matter of routine formulation optimization. The conventional optimization of component concentrations to achieve desired formulation properties, as such ranges, are routine in the art of pesticide formulation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chen, Lin, and Torrent-Parker to arrive at the claimed composition in order to provide stable aqueous suspension concentrates of chlorantraniliprole and binary insecticide combinations (Lin), improve dispersion stability using combined steric and electrostatic stabilization mechanisms (Chen and Torrent-Parker), employ known surfactants and dispersants at optimized ratios as evidenced by DeSousa. The combination merely applies known formulation principles to known insecticides to achieve predictable results.
Regarding particle size, Chen teaches a stable aqueous formulation with, “an active ingredient selected from the group consisting of a pesticide, a fungicide, an insecticide and combinations thereof of from 100 g/L to 750 g/L and a weight average particle size of 50% from 2 to 25 microns by the laser light scattering method…” (¶[0031]), preferably from 2 to 20 microns for the invention (¶[0077]), thus encompassing the particle size distribution D50 ranging from 2-10 microns as in instant claim 22, and from about 3-4 microns in Example 3 (¶[0093]), encompassed within the instant claim 22 range. Since the composition is subjected to milling, one skilled in the art would easily modify the milling to include particle sizes as defined in instant claim 22 using routine steps alone.
Torrent-Parker teaches (¶[0087]) aqueous liquid compositions of insecticides (such as neonicotinoids) and a stabilizing system that comprises a steric stabilizer (block copolymer of polyalkylene oxide or acrylic copolymer) and a static stabilizer (naphthalene sulfonic acid or lignosulfonic acid) at a ratio of 1:5 to 5:1 (Abstract, ¶[0037], ¶[045]-[0046], Examples). The citation discloses that the composition can have a D50 of 1.5-3 microns and D95 of below 150 microns (¶[0087]), which encompasses the instant claim 23 range. Example 1 discloses the preparation of such a composition wherein the static stabilizer is added to a solution comprising steric stabilizer and subjected to agitation (or mixing). The active ingredient (thiamethoxam) is then added to this, mixed and subjected to milling to reduce the particle size (¶[0084]-[0088]). Example 6 teaches a method of controlling undesired insects using the composition (¶[0113]-[0115]).
Thus, since the composition is subjected to milling, one skilled in the art would easily modify the milling to include particle sizes as defined in instant claim 23 using routine steps, as evidence by DeSousa using insecticides in a suspension concentration formulation wherein, “In an optional step, the dispersion may be wet milled to reduce the average median particle size D50 (50th percentile of cumulative size distribution) to less than about 10 µm and average particle size D90 (90th percentile of cumulative size distribution) to less than about 30 µm. Particle size Dx means that x% of the particles have a particle size smaller than the number indicated. Particle size can be measured by a laser diffraction instrument known to those skilled in the art. Wet milling may be done in process equipment known in the art such as ball mills or colloid mills. In one embodiment, the D50 particle size is less than about 10 µm and the D90 particle size is less than about 30 µm.” (¶[0102]). The exact D50 and D90 numerical ranges are not expressly disclosed, however, particle size is a result-effective variable controlled by milling time and energy, and selecting particle sizes within the claimed ranges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to balance stability and sprayability.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to achieve the claimed particle size distribution as a matter of standard and routine practices for one skilled in the art of milling of aqueous suspension concentrates, and easily modified until desired particle size distribution range is achieved, including the particle sizes as defined in the instant claims by using routine steps in view of the Torrent-Parker disclosure and as evidence by DeSousa.
Furthermore, even with minor differences in specific insecticide, achieving the claimed particle size ranges are routine optimizations taught by standard milled aqueous suspension concentrate practice, in the absence of proof of unexpected results. The applicant reiterates this point in the instant specification as, “These aqueous formulations are usually prepared by suspending the solid active ingredient in an aqueous system containing a suitable surfactant for stabilizing the solid particles of the active ingredient and then comminuting the active ingredient particles down to the desired particle size, which is normally below 10 μm.” (¶[0003] and ¶[0176]) and “The slurry was then fed to bead mill to achieve desired particle size. After slurry reaches desired particle size, it was transferred into gelling vessel” (¶[0176]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mill the aqueous insecticidal composition of claim 8 to achieve particle size distributions suitable for suspension concentrates, such as those recited in claims 22 and 23. The recited D50 and D90 ranges represent conventional particle size targets for aqueous suspension concentrates to ensure physical stability and biological efficacy and achieving such particle sizes through routine milling would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Arguments/Remarks of the reply, filed 02 June 2026, have been fully considered.
The applicant contends that claims 22 and 23 are definite because D50 and D90 are conventional particle-size distribution metrics understood by a person of ordinary skill in the agrochemical formulation art, and that the specification and working examples consistently use these terms. This argument is not persuasive. The issue is not whether the terms D50 and D90 themselves are understood and recognized terms in the art, but rather that the claims fail to specify the measurement technique, sample preparation, data analysis parameters, and basis (volume, number, or intensity), all of which can materially alter the reported numerical values. The rejection is based upon the absence of sufficient objective boundaries for determining whether a given composition falls within the claimed scope.
As explained in the previous Office Correspondence, particle size values reported as D50 and D90 are highly dependent upon the measurement methodology employed (e.g., laser diffraction, dynamic light scattering, microscopy, sedimentation), sample preparation conditions, dispersing medium, dilution factor, sonication conditions, refractive index assumptions, software calculation models, and whether particle size is reported as volume-, number-, or intensity-based distributions. The specification provides no guidance on these parameters. Without such parameters, a person of ordinary skill cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether a given composition falls within the claimed ranges of “2 microns to 10 microns” (D50) or “10 microns to 20 microns” (D90) (see Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014)).
The applicant has not identified any portion of the specification that prescribes the measurement methodology used to determine the claimed D50 and D90 values. While the applicant correctly notes that the specification reports D50 and D90 values, mere disclosure of numerical values does not resolve the ambiguity regarding how those values are determined. Where a parameter may vary significantly depending on measurement methodology, and the claims fail to identify the methodology, the metes and bounds of the claim are not reasonably certain. The applicant’s reliance on the working examples is unavailing because the examples do not specify the measurement protocol. The examples report particle size data (e.g., Example 12 reports D10, D50, D90 values) but do not disclose the measurement methodology employed. While the specification at ¶[0077] references "particle size distribution D50 of less than about 10.0 microns," it similarly fails to specify measurement parameters. The applicant's amendment changing "micron" to "microns" does not address the basis of the rejection. Accordingly, claims 22 and 23 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). To overcome this rejection, the applicant is invited to amend the claims to recite a specific measurement methodology (e.g., “as measured by laser diffraction in an aqueous dispersing medium based on volume distribution”).
The applicant argues that Chen is directed primarily to biological formulations involving Bacillus firmus spores and therefore would not have motivated a skilled artisan to formulate the presently claimed chlorantraniliprole compositions. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely upon Chen for any alleged teaching regarding spore viability. Rather, Chen is relied upon for its express disclosure of aqueous pesticide suspension concentrates, steric stabilizers, electrostatic (static) stabilizers, specific stabilizer species falling within the presently claimed Markush groups, stabilizer concentrations, stabilizer ratios, and particle-size characteristics. Importantly, Chen expressly teaches embodiments that do not require spores and separately teaches chemical pesticide formulations. Thus, Chen is not limited to spore-containing formulations.
Chen explicitly discloses, in the absence of spores, stable aqueous insecticidal compositions comprising high loadings of insecticidal actives (e.g., 33% w/w in Example 4), a dual stabilization system with steric stabilizers (e.g., Atlox 4913, EO-PO block copolymer) and a static stabilizer (e.g., Morwet D425), and a steric-to-static stabilizer ratio falling squarely within the applicant’s claimed range of about 5:1 to about 1:5 (e.g., 1:1 ratio of Atlox 4913 to Morwet D425; 4:1 ratio of combined steric stabilizers to Morwet D425). Chen’s Example 4 is a spore-free formulation (claim 17 of Chen). Thus, Chen directly teaches the claimed stabilization system, the claimed ratio, and an overlapping insecticide concentration range. The applicant’s attempt to distinguish Chen based on its inventive focus on Bacillus firmus is irrelevant to the question of what Chen actually discloses as a matter of technical content. The applicant's focus on Chen's biological aspects does not negate Chen's express teachings regarding aqueous pesticide suspension formulations.
The applicant argues that Chen fails to identify the claimed steric/static stabilizer ratio as a result-effective variable. This argument is not persuasive. Chen expressly discloses Example 4 containing Atlox 4913 (steric stabilizer), EO-PO block copolymer surfactant (steric stabilizer), and Morwet D425 (electrostatic stabilizer). The resulting steric-to-static stabilizer ratios disclosed by Chen fall squarely within the presently claimed range. Where prior art discloses overlapping ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). The applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating criticality of the claimed ratio range nor has the applicant demonstrated any unexpected results associated with the claimed range. Accordingly, the claimed ratio remains an obvious optimization of a known formulation parameter.
Torrent-Parker and DeSousa confirm routine optimization of stabilizer ratios and particle size. Torrent-Parker teaches aqueous liquid pesticidal compositions comprising a steric stabilizer and a static stabilizer at a ratio of 1:5 to 5:1 (Abstract), which overlaps with the applicant’s claimed ratio. Although Torrent-Parker is directed to seed treatment, its teachings on stabilizer ratios are generally applicable to any aqueous suspension concentrate. DeSousa explicitly teaches wet milling to achieve a D50 of less than 10 µm and a D90 of less than 30 µm (¶[0102]), thereby providing direct motivation to achieve the claimed D90 range of 10-20 µm. The applicant’s own specification admits that particle size is “normally below 10 μm”, confirming that the claimed ranges are conventional.
The applicant argues that neither Chen nor Lin teaches the specific chlorantraniliprole combinations recited in instant claim 8. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection relies upon Chen for formulation architecture and stabilizer systems, Lin for chlorantraniliprole suspension concentrate formulations, DeSousa as evidence that chlorantraniliprole combinations with the presently claimed partner insecticides were known in the art, and Torrent-Parker for conventional stabilization systems and suspension concentrate formulation techniques. The applicant does not dispute that chlorantraniliprole was known, chlorfenapyr was known, methoxyfenozide was known, novaluron was known, diflubenzuron was known, clothianidin was known, and that combinations of insecticides having differing modes of action were routinely employed for resistance management and spectrum broadening. Lin expressly teaches chlorantraniliprole formulated as an aqueous suspension concentrate stabilized by a combination of a steric stabilizer (EO-PO block copolymer) and a static stabilizer (sodium lignosulfonate). While Lin’s Example 7 uses thiocyclam as a combination partner, Lin’s Abstract and general disclosure teach the concept of combining chlorantraniliprole with other insecticides to broaden the spectrum of activity and manage resistance.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select these known partners based on complementary modes of action, as evidenced by DeSousa. The mere fact that Lin does not exemplify each specific pairing does not render the combination non-obvious. The presently claimed combinations merely select from a finite set of recognized insecticides already known for combination use. Where there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions, pursuing known options is likely the product of ordinary skill rather than invention (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). The applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected synergistic formulation stability attributable to the claimed combinations, nor has the applicant demonstrated that any claimed binary combination exhibits properties not reasonably expected from the prior art.
The applicant cites the Thielert Declaration from Chen's prosecution history. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely upon any alleged synergistic biological activity discussed in the declaration. Instead, the rejection relies upon the explicit formulation disclosures of Chen. Whether Chen's stabilizer system contributed to biological synergy is irrelevant to whether Chen teaches the stabilizer system itself. The declaration therefore does not undermine the factual findings supporting the rejection.
The applicant argues that the claimed D50 and D90 ranges are not taught by the cited references. This argument is not persuasive. Chen expressly teaches weight-average particle sizes, D50 values overlapping claim 22, and milling of suspension concentrates. Torrent-Parker teaches aqueous insecticide suspension concentrates, controlled particle-size distributions, and milling procedures. DeSousa further teaches D50 values below 10 µm, D90 values below 30 µm, laser diffraction measurement, and wet milling to achieve desired particle-size distributions. The prior art therefore establishes that particle size is a recognized result-effective variable. Optimization of milling parameters to obtain a desired D50 or D90 value constitutes routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)). The particle-size limitations remain routine optimization of recognized result-effective variables. The applicant has not demonstrated criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed D50 and D90 ranges. Accordingly, claims 22 and 23 remain obvious.
In summary, DeSousa expressly teaches suspension concentrate pesticide formulations, chlorantraniliprole-containing compositions, combinations of chlorantraniliprole with several of the presently claimed partner insecticides, wet milling, D50 less than 10 µm, D90 less than 30 µm, and laser diffraction particle-size analysis. Chen supplies the specific steric/static stabilizer system and overlapping stabilizer ratios. Lin supplies additional teaching regarding chlorantraniliprole suspension concentrate formulations. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ Chen's known stabilization system in DeSousa's chlorantraniliprole suspension concentrate formulations to achieve predictable suspension stability and storage performance, with a reasonable expectation of success. The resulting composition would have met the limitations of claims 8, 14, 22, and 23. Thus, the applicant's amendments do not overcome the outstanding rejections and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (87 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L. SCOTLAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-2979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at: http:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’ s supervisor, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/RL Scotland/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights